A rational fix for Social Security system

When Holt talks, people should listen, whether they agree or not. So it's a bit ironic that one of his latest legislative efforts, to strengthen Social Security, really doesn't require any of Holt's brand of intelligence and savvy. It is - or rather, should be - painfully obvious.

Holt's bill, co-sponsored by California Rep. Linda Sanchez, proposes three broad steps: It would increase Social Security benefits, revamp calculations of cost-of-living adjustments to better reflect rising costs, and to pay for all of that - which, as always, is the main sticking point - the current taxable cap of $113,700 in income would be phased out.

Most everyone would concede that the first two goals are worthy ones, if affordable. But too many powerful people are never happy with the prospect of giving a little more, and the cap is yet another policy designed to protect the wealthy - or in this case, the wealthier, since we won't pretend that folks earning a bit more than $113,700 are out there burning thousands of dollars on watches and gold faucets.

But the message behind the cap is clear: millionaires and billionaires should not have to pay "extra" for a program that primarily serves to assist commoners, since the rich are not likely to ever need the help of Social Security.

Social Security is a vital component of American life. It is difficult to imagine our society surviving in any meaningful way without it - and in fact it did nearly crumble away during the Great Depression, which was fueled by the absence of safety nets like Social Security. Yet those fighting to maintain the cap are telling us, in effect, that none of that matters as much as being able to keep as much as possible for themselves.

And it is naive to believe that more money in the hands of the rich is translating into more jobs and better lives for average Americans. It's not.

We can't afford such elitism anymore. What has long been so galling about the debate over Social Security's future is that there is such an easy fix available - raise or, better yet, eliminate the cap entirely. That assures a fairer distribution of Social Security taxes, extends the solvency of the program, and simply makes more sense.

Some of the details of the Holt-Sanchez bill can certainly be discussed and tweaked. But any debate about strengthening Social Security must start with an understanding that the old concept of capping taxable income at such a relatively low level and leaving billions in income untouched for the purpose of funding the program has to be scrapped.

The sooner the better. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.